F1 Q&A: Can Red Bull recover from loss in form?

Charles Leclerc pulled off an extraordinary home win for Ferrari at the Italian Grand Prix on Sunday, ahead of both the McLarens of Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris.

BBC F1 correspondent Andrew Benson answers your questions following the race at Monza.

Why are McLaren choosing not to make Lando Norris their number one driver? - Michael

Reading between the lines of the comments made by team principal Andrea Stella after the Italian Grand Prix, it seems as if that may be exactly what they are about to do.

Stella chose his words carefully but the message was that McLaren now realise they have a chance of winning the drivers' title as well as the constructors' and they should try to do everything they can to take advantage of that.

"Even from a drivers' point of view, with the performance we have at the moment in the car and some of the struggle we see with Red Bull, it is definitely possible," Stella said.

"If we can achieve both, we need to put the team and Lando in position to pursue both championships."

Stella and McLaren's default is to race fair for both drivers - the foundation of the so-called "papaya rules" Norris' engineer Will Joseph referred to over the radio in Monza, the details of which Stella does not want to divulge because he considers them part of McLaren's "intellectual property", as he puts it.

Stella is big on team harmony, on everyone buying into the overall philosophy of the way McLaren go racing, and building a calm, respectful, collegiate environment. So he is not keen on team orders, having experienced them during his years at Ferrari, when he was engineer for Michael Schumacher, Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso.

And the idea of a number one and number two driver also makes him uncomfortable. As he put it after the race on Sunday: "Number one works well as a headline. But I am not sure it works very well in reality.

"Let's say we conclude [that] in corner four [on the first lap], Lando just braked too early and Oscar kind of naturally had a possibility to take the lead. Then what does it mean if you are number one? You kind of swap the lap after?

"It is very difficult to implement this situation in the real world. We need to keep working as a team and then work together to try and pursue this objective in both championships, because it now looks as if the drivers' championship is definitely a possibility."

Stella admits McLaren had been "a little cautious [about the title hopes] even before Monza", largely because of the perceived strength of Red Bull, the size of Max Verstappen's advantage in the championship and doubts about whether McLaren could be competitive at every race.

But he added: "Now we see McLaren can compete in circuits where last year we were not competitive. So it is a very competitive package overall and this could be a very important weapon for Lando, in particular in the quest for the championship."

And there was a further hint that team orders in Norris' championship favour are on the way when he described the idea of Piastri backing Norris as "an investment" for the Australian because he is in only his second full season - "the future is Oscar's” and it would be "a massive boost for the team".

Does Red Bull's downturn in form coincide with the departure of their chief technical officer Adrian Newey? - Steve

Yes, it does. But that's not the question - the question is, has it been caused by it? Correlation and causation are not necessarily the same thing.

The statistics make for interesting reading.

Newey is still employed by Red Bull. But his last race working in any capacity on F1 was Miami, back in early May.

Verstappen's average finishing position for the races up to and including Miami, not including retirements, was 1.2. Since then, it is 3.3. In qualifying, he was averaging first up to Miami and 3.1 since.

As for team-mate Sergio Perez, race results up to Miami were an average of third, since then it is 8.5. In qualifying, it was 2.9, since then 11th.

Those numbers are stark.

But is this caused by Newey's departure? Verstappen was asked whether Newey's role changing had had an influence on results on Thursday in Monza.

He said: "Normally not. Since it was announced, it has been more difficult but it shouldn't matter if someone is leaving on the spot that immediately the performance drops, because the car has always been the same."

After the race Verstappen was asked the same question, and his answer was slightly different in tone.

"I've always said I would have liked Adrian to stay," Verstappen said. "Always. But it's not about that now. Last year we had a great car, that was the most dominant car ever, and we basically turned it into a monster, so we have to turn it around."

Team principal Christian Horner was also asked whether losing Newey had had any impact on the fact Red Bull had lost their way with the car.

He said: "I think we would have had all these issues because they were already there, and one man's input could never be so dramatic so quickly. This started to really highlight itself in Miami, and Adrian was plugged in up until Friday of Miami."

The point, though, is that Newey has not been plugged in since. It was put to Horner that perhaps Newey might have been able to see a way out of Red Bull's problems sooner.

Horner said: "Well, he'd be working with all the same people. F1 is a team sport, it's a team issue and the team will come up with a resolution."

There can, of course, be no definitive answer.

But Red Bull have lost the skills of the greatest designer in F1 history, a unique insight into the impact of aerodynamics on an F1 car. A man who also has renowned talent as a race engineer, and a refined understanding of exactly what a racing driver needs from a car to be fast.

It's hard to imagine that has had no impact at all.

Looking into your crystal ball regarding the rest of the season, can Red Bull pull it back or not? - Richard

I don't have a crystal ball. But on paper, you would have to say that Max Verstappen is still a strong favourite for the drivers' title.

The Red Bull driver still has a very large points lead, there are not that many races to go, he is incredibly consistent and strong and Lando Norris has to have an almost perfect end to the season to catch him.

Having said that, Red Bull are effectively admitting to being lost with their car, which Verstappen described as a "monster" on Sunday.

They are a very strong team - less so without Adrian Newey, admittedly - but time is not on their side, given the lead times involved in design and manufacturing, and the fact that, right now, Red Bull don't know what the fix to their issues is.

If McLaren can keep performing at the current level, and if they throw everything behind Norris, and if Red Bull can't recover - and if other drivers and teams can deprive Verstappen of points as well - then Norris has a chance. But that's a lot of 'ifs' and the odds are not in Norris' favour.

The constructors' championship is a different matter. McLaren are still behind, but now only by eight points. They are favourites for that. And what a story that would be if they win it, 26 years since they last did so.

Is there a difference between tow and slipstream? Should tows be banned during qualifying sessions, as an unfair advantage could be gained? - Alan

No, they are simply different words for the same thing. Slipstreaming is part of motor racing. Quite apart from that, a ban would be impossible to police.

What is the point of Formula 2 if drivers who don't win it get promoted due to connections with Formula 1 teams? - Ryan

Formula 2 is the final step in the graduation system through motorsport on the way to F1. But it is no guarantee of a seat in F1, and why should it be?

The drivers in F1 are supposed to be the 20 best in the world. And, with a small number of exceptions, that's what they are.

In any given year, the F2 field might not be that strong. Or even if it is, the driver who wins it might not be as good as most of the drivers already in F1.

There are plenty of examples of drivers who have had impressive careers in F2 or Formula 3, even winning championships, getting to F1 and simply not being good enough at the very highest level.

F1 teams put a lot of work into their driver academies. A place on them has to be earned.

And when it comes to most F1 teams, they want the fastest possible drivers in their cars. Just because someone is in their academy, that is no guarantee of a seat in F1. Again, the team has to be convinced they are the right choice.

So, in the cases of Andrea Kimi Antonelli and Oliver Bearman being promoted to F1 next season despite not winning the F2 title, Mercedes and Ferrari are convinced they have what it takes. That's a decision they have formed over many years of experience of those drivers.

But when they get to F1, that's just the beginning. They have to prove themselves all over again. Motor racing is a tough business, and F1 the pinnacle. And standards are very high.

With two races in the USA to come, have Williams made a huge error in dropping Logan Sargeant for the rest of the season? - Pete

Sargeant had plenty of chances before he was dropped after the Dutch Grand Prix.

He had been comprehensively outperformed by team-mate Alex Albon over more than a season and a half, was not making obvious progress, and his needless crash in practice in Zandvoort was the final straw for Williams team boss James Vowles.

The car had Williams' new upgrade package on it, and Sargeant crashed - not because he was pushing to the limit through a corner - but because he made a misjudgement and drove on to the wet grass. In doing so, he destroyed that set of upgrades and cost the team an awful lot of money.

It was not the first time Sargeant had crashed in that way this year - he also did so in Japan, when Williams were right up against it in terms of parts after a difficult start to the season.

The Americans like winners. Sargeant was at the back of the grid. It's hard to imagine his absence in Austin and Las Vegas will have any significant impact at all.